Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

What is "Full Time Ministry?"

A great post by Charlie Wear on what it means to be in full time ministry:

Over the years I have heard numbers of people say, “I wish I could be in full-time ministry.” What they are saying is, “I wish I could stop working as a ___________ (you fill in the blank) and work full-time as a pastor, or missionary, or nonprofit leader of some kind.” It is only in the last few months that I have figured out that Jesus wants me to be in full-time ministry and he has wanted that to be my condition from the day he called me to follow him.

In the last few months I have had a shift in my worldview, especially concerning my business as a lawyer. I have begun to see my law practice as my “flock,” the people God has sent to me for ministry. Since that shift I have begun to see my clients through Jesus’ eyes and my daily life as one divine appointment after another. The results have been mind-blowing! I have seen Jesus enter the courtroom with me and set a captive free. I have been given the opportunity to share the good news about Christ with others. I have prayed for physical healing and seen instantaneous results. I have comforted the bereaved and the hopeless. It has been an amazing time.


Read the whole thing...

Thursday, October 02, 2008

The Case for Protestantism

I've posted comments on this blog sometime ago, casting the Catholic Church in a facourable light, in particular, quoting Alan Creech on his return to the Roman fold. It's evident that the Holy Spirit does lead some to join the mother church, in spite of some factors that Catholics such as Alan Creech willingly share which tend to be on the negative side.

I have my own reasons for not joining. First, I haven't felt the leading of the Holy Spirit to become a Roman Catholic, nor an Eastern Orthodox. Despite many of my pro-Jewish, pro-rabbinical views, I have also not felt the leading to convert to Judeaism (even as a Messianic Jew). I apply Paul's advice to remain as one is, to both issues. I'm a "goy" from my mother's womb, and I remain a non-protesting Protestant.

Some of my reasons for not joining the Catholic Church are probably the same reasons I wouldn't join the Anglecan or the Reformed churches -- nor even Baptist. For one thing, I'm not a follower of Augustine (a fine saint, a shining testamony of faith, but I don't follow him in all of his theology which has formed a basis for both Roman Catholic and Reformed doctrine). Also, my perception of what is a minister, rather inhibits me from joining a group that has such a long tradition of elevating the clergy above the laity.

I also find that some of my reasons for not being a Catholic are the same as Scot McKnight's. Here is a very well written essay as to why he isn't Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox. It's a very good testimonial on behalf of Protestantism, without being anti-Catholic (I hope it's understood that one can be critical without being 'anti-')

Anyway, here it is...

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Two Problems

I found this via Next Reformation. It's a pair of questions that seems to go the heart of what's wrong with Christianity today:

1. Present day Christians are not very good at accepting outsiders (sinners who do not follow Jesus).

2. Present day Christians are far too accepting of sinful behavior from insiders (Christians who have been following Jesus long enough to know better).

Shouldn’t it be just the opposite?

Any thoughts about why this is so?

Some good thoughts expressed on both blogs.








Thursday, May 15, 2008

Call for Apostles

I found the link to this while reading Charlie Wear's blog:
Where are all the apostles?
I find myself missing them more and more lately. Which is interesting because I'm not even sure what I'm missing. What is it I want an apostle to do for me? It seems like there must be something. Is there anyone in the Church today that has the authority to say the kinds of things that Paul did? We're drowning in opinions and strategies and "movements" and "we just need to get back tos." But we don't seem to have anyone that can stand up and say, "I'm an apostle by the will of God. All this nonsense has to stop because it's divisive and it's fruitless. And whoever disagrees with me, let's just see which of us God's power stands behind!"

That was Scott Bane. It's been a while since I heard anyone talking about apostles. I believe apostles are to be a part of the latter-time landscape. I'm aware that many people who claim to be apostles, or saying that this one or that one is an apostle (and therefore you're out of order if you don't listen to him/her), but I don't believe they've fully arrived yet. If they have, they're hidden for the moment. The test of who's really an apostle may well be what Scott says above, someone with the boldness to suffix his proclamation with, "...and whoever disagrees with me, let's just see which of us God's power stands behind!"

That would only work for a true apostle.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Church and the financial crunch

There's not much I could say that isn't being said much better, but there's a conversation going on about it in blogdom. The blog post that started it appears to be this one (by Chris Marshal):


My truck is paid off but the gas prices are killing me. I don't drive that much and its over $300 per month, not including my wife's car. So what does this project to as a national economy? Recession seems inevitable, will it go way beyond that? A nation already ruled by fear and over-spending with no margins by individuals and the government, what will be the consequences?

How will this impact churches and mortgages and credit lines that can't be fed? As builders pass on who are the committed givers what is left? 1/2 of boomers are there to give and the other 1/2 are driven past their financial margins with consumerism and can't help. Gen X and Millenials have very little value in long term comittments, are all about instant gratification and consumerism is their native language. Commonly this group of up and comers are living on 125-140% of their income taking on exponential debt per year. What will be the result of these decisions having no margins when the shoe drops?

Will American churches go the way of their European counterparts? Becoming really funky coffee houses, restaraunts, art galleries and dance clubs. Just things I wonder about.


I was alerted to the subject by a post on Alan Creech's blog, but on Chris's latest post, there's a more complete list of who's talking about it and links to their blogs (including Alan's).

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

...an example of what I'm talking about:

Okay, we really haven't been talking about it on this blog, but we could just as well have been.

The reason I'm a Protestant is because I believe in Yeshua, and I didn't happen to be baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. Going strictly by the etimology, the term 'Protestant' probably doesn't apply to me because I'm not a non-Catholic out of protest. My belief is that the sign over the door neither saves nor damns, but it's the faith accompanied by its fruit. I may not agree with every point of Roman Catholic doctrine, just as I probably probably don't agree 100% with any one church's creed. But neither do I see a chruches official creed as necessarily defining every single person who happens to belong to that church.

In that light, I found Alan Creech's latest autobiographical blog entry encouraging. It's a good read.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Sheep Comics

I was pointed to this on Len Hjarmalson's blog. I reminds me of some of my own takes on sheep and chickens. The sheep in these cartoons says some of the same things a lot of us are trying to say... anyway, happy reading

Monday, June 12, 2006

Relationships -- not something to mess around with

In my last blog entry, I said, "The church is only as strong as the relationship between you, as a believer, and that member of your local congregation to whom you feel the least inclination to express your love." I believe that 100 per cent.

It's quite obvious that our relationships are something we are to take very seriously. Yeshua says in Matthew 5:23 and 24, If you are offering a saccrifice at the alter, and you remember that someone has a grudge against you, then leave your offering, go make up with that person, and then come back and finish the sacrifice.

Consider the expense people went through in Yeshua's day just to comply with the the Torah regulations regarding the offering of their sacrifices at the Temple. It was serious business. It would easily compare with just about anything we'd do in ministry or any form of worship or service we'd do in the church today. Yet, Yeshua says, "Stop. Put it all on hold. Make sure your relationships with your brothers and sisters are right first. Then go ahead with your act of worship/ministry/spiritual obligation."

Yet, look how much priority we give to relationships today. When we hear that brother so-and-so and sister whoever had a falling out, we shrug and say it's none of our business.

That's not how the early church reacted. They took it seriously, as this passage from the Didache indicates. The Didache is like a handbook for doing church, issued towards the end of the first century. It probably dates to before the Gospels began to circulate. The full title of the document is, THE DIDACHE or THE TEACHING OF THE LORD TO THE GENTILES BY THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Anyway, here is a quote from section 14 of that document:
Let no man who has a dispute with his fellow join your assembly until they have been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for it was this sacrifice that was spoken of by the Lord; "In every place and at every time offer Me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great king, says the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations."
What would you think of a church that applied this rule in their congregation today?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

how strong is your church?

Here's a thought:

The church is only as strong as the relationship between you, as a believer, and that member of your local congregation to whom you feel the least inclination to express your love.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Keith Green's legacy

I recently finished reading No Compromise, the life story of Keith Green, written by his wife, Melody Green.

The fact that it was written by his wife, is a good indicator. For many seeminly impressive individuals, their wife would be the last one they'd want telling their story. Wives know too much.

No Compromise is a must-read for every believer in Messiah. In parts, it's a tear-jerker -- and by that, I mean it's about facts and events that make God cry. Read about the revival that almost was at Oral Roberts University; which should have gone on for weeks and months, spread throughout the nation and the world, and could have made a difference in the state the Western church is in today; but instead, was abruply shut down through human intervention. Talk about grieving the Spirit.

Also, read of the general lukwarm state of the church then, Keith's burning desire to light a fire that would move believers from their apathy into true live-changing repentance, and then reflect on the state of the church today. Keith Green did influence a lot of individual believers, and continues to do so, but according to Barna's report, the Western Church is in an even worse state than ever.

Read it and weap.

I found my copy in a used book shop in the shoping arcade of Europa Bus Centre in Belfast. Besides the printed version, I see, on the website of Last Days Ministries that a computer text version is available on CD along with a complete selection of Keith Green's songs. There is also a large archive of articles by Keith Green and others on that website.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

How Christian is America?

Len, at NextReformation points to an excellent article on the state of the Church in America, By Bill McKibben in Harper's Magazine. It's entitled, The Christian Paradox.
Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish.
However, he also points out that America's favourite scripture verse is, "God helps those who help themselves" ... which isn't from scripture. It's from Benjamin Franklin, who's ideas weren't all that Biblical.

The following quote probably sums it up:
America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior.
Anyway, have a read...



Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Craig Morton reviews Alan Jamieson's A Churchless Faith

I found it via Len's NextReformation.com blog, and his entry has already attracted an intersting comment.

The book, A Churchless Faith: Faith Journey’s Beyond the Churches, is about people who leave churches, not as in "oh, it's just the cold dead churches that are losing members", but the front line, cutting edge "EPC" (Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic) churches. And they're not just those on the fringes. 90% of those interviewed were in leadership of some sort in their respective congregations, most of them had been members for 15 years or more, and many had been through some theological training. The number also includes full time ministers.

The bottom line is, according to the author, many of the leavers are growing spiritually in areas where their churches have stopped. Rather than blame the leavers, it would behoove us to examine ourselves and see where we might need to expand some of our concepts a bit.

Anyway, read Craig Morton's review to find out more.

Friday, August 05, 2005

What makes Church? 7 - Foundations

Foundational teaching is among the most important things that make up the stability and vitality of church. It can make the difference between a handful of cheery believers who think this idea of Emerging Church (or Messianic, or whatever) is a cool idea and get on for the ride; and a committed taskforce that all know who they are, what they are, and where they're going. Both groups, by our definition, are "church", but the second one will stay together much longer.

The true foundation is Yeshua. All foundational teaching will focus on Him, and will plant us firmly on who He is. In one way, it's a simple concept -- simple enough for new believers to know which direction to begin going without complicating the issue.

However, if we consider that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments also focuses on Yeshua, we realise that there's more to it than meets the eye. If we further realise that to understand the Old Testament helps us to understand the New, and thus roots us all the more deeply in Yeshua, we realise that we may have a ways to go to being firmly built on the Foundation.

The Messianic movement has done a valuable job in returning us to our foundations. By highlighting the Jewish source of our faith, we can now see a few things in perspective. Some may feel that they are among those complicating the issue. However, the issue became complicated long before they arrived on the scene. If anything, they're helping to un-complicate things.

We have to understand that the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles were Jewish. As revolutionary as their message was, it was rooted in Jewish culture, and in a Jewish understanding of divine revelation. But somehow, we've lost that. We no longer look at biblical revelation with a Jewish mind, but with a Greek philosopher's mind. How did this happen?

I'll answer with a short history:

To the rabbis, what Yeshua and His apostles had to say was quite radical -- radical enough for many of them to reject it outright as heresy. The early believers knew that their message was radical. The idea of Gentiles being accepted as equals without them having to become Torah observant, was extreme!

The Gentile believers knew that their new found faith was radical for their Jewish brethren. In fact, they were warned, by Paul et al, to be on guard for some of their Jewish brethren of the old school who would try to make them Torah observant. So they were. They knew they were radical.

But how radical? some of them wondered. Can we be this radical? Can we dump everything that Judaism ever taught and base our understanding on Greek style logic? By the time they were asking loud enough to be heard, the original writers of the New Testament had already passed from the scene. The majority of the Messianic population was now Gentile. So, they began to interpret the whole of the New Testament and as much of the Old Testament as they could using mathematical logic learned from Plato and Aristotle (in fact, they even began forcing Jewish believers to become Gentiles!). Because Paul sounded more Greek than the rest, and was, after all, the one who told the Gentile believers to avoid being forced into Torah observance, his epistles were understood as being foundational to Christian belief. The Gospels, because they made Yeshua sound Jewish, was understood to being targetted to Old Testament Judaism, and not to New Testament Christians. They were only good for historical value. But the real meat was the Pauline epistles.

Unfortunately, this was the theological equivalent of mistaking the window and door frames, the drywall and the roofing material for the foundation of a building, and using the foundational material for decoration.

Consider that when the New Testament writers talked about the scripture, they were referring to the Torah and the Prophets and other Old Testament writings. Only Peter, shortly before he and the other New Testament writers passed from the scene, referred to Paul's epistles as "scripture", but also said they were easy to misunderstand, and that many had twisted them out of context to their own destruction (II Peter 3:15,16). This means that one has to have a good foundational knowledge of God's revelation in Yeshua before they can understand Paul's epistles.

Yeshua said in Matthew 7, "He who hears these words of mine (i.e. the Gospels), and does them is like a man building on the foundation". Hebrews 6 gives us a list of what the foundations are, referring to them as the "elementary principals of Messiah": Repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection and eternal judgement. The Gospels open up with repentance and faith. The General Epistles, James, Peter's and John's epistles, and Jude also deal directly with faith and repentance and the other foundations.

For example, they give us a good definition of faith. The Pauline epistles talk about faith, but they don't supply a definition.

If we were to go straight to Ephesians chapter 2, and forget James 3, we would read, "By grace you are saved through faith...not of works." Later on, if we read James, who says, "Faith without works is dead," we'd think the two passages were contradictory.

In the mean time, our faith might not amount to very much. We would think, "Yeah, I believe. I said the sinner's prayer, so I'm saved. I can claim every spiritual blessing in Messiah," while living a very carnal life. Anytime someone pointed out our carnality, we'd retort, "Salvation isn't of works! I'm saved by faith!"

However, if we established our definition of what faith is by understanding the message of James, then we'd know what kind of faith Paul is talking about when he says we're saved by faith.

We're not saved by works, but real faith that saves will produce works. A life based on true faith will be readily distinguishable from a life that isn't. James and I John is full of that.

When many pollsters today tell us that the life of the average "born again" Christian looks no different from that of an average non-Christian, that tells us that we've got our foundation all wrong.

p.s. I've got a project underway, writing series of study outlines that cover foundational truth. It begins in the Old Testament, and takes us into the New. It's not complete yet, but I'm sure you could learn a lot. Click here...

This is the last in the What Makes Church? series. I haven't covered the subheading Worship yet, but there's so much good material out there on that already, and I don't feel I have anything to add to it. However, I'm sure we'll discuss issues related to this and the othe subheadings, and more besides, in future posts.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

What Makes Church? 6 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings, etc.


Just a short one today, with a few links to some useful articles regarding church.

Two are by Rick Joyner, who believes that one of the priorities that churches generally fail in is equipping the believers for ministry. Usually, only 2% of church members take any part in ministry. At Morningstar Fellowship, at the time he wrote the articles below, 15 to 20 % are involved, and he feels they have a long way to go. The two articles are:

Megatrends in the New Millennium (on Next Reformation website)

Shepherd's Astray (from Morningstar website)

Another one who has a lot to say is Andrew Strom, who believes that the next revival will be a street revival. Even calling it "house church" would be incorrect, as it will be on the streets. His website is called, Revival School. He has written an e-book called The Nine Lies of Today’s Church, available in PDF format from the adotadonai.net website. He comes on very strong, and many won't agree with everything he says. However, the last chapter qualifies the overall message by saying that to expect a church to immediately adopt all of his points (ie. selling their church building, changing the pastor's roll, trashing all programs, etc) may be impossible, and perhaps unwise to attempt. To be honest, there's nothing in it that I can say I disagree with -- though I may not come on as strongly as he -- but I would agree that the church described as the antithesis to the "9 lies" may be impossible in most places (at least in the free world) until after a major shaking has happened to Western society. We may discuss some of his points at another time in this blog.

There are also many other websites and blogs, some of which you'll find in the sidebar, that are good resources for doing church the organic or emergent way. Some of them simply offer a window into various local fellowiships. Others also offer valuable resources, as well as links to yet more.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

What Makes Church? 5 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings

In many ways, the two subheadings Leadership and Authority, and Ministry and Giftings, overlap. That's because good leadership is not only a gift, but it facilitates gifts and ministry among the members to the extant where it could be hard to tell the difference between the "full time ministers" and what we previously thought were "laity".

A few years ago, at a church conference in Thailand, I was asked to interpret for one of the speakers. He was the pastor of a Baptist church in New Zealand, who had led his church through a very interesting transition. It began as he was pondering and praying about how the church could fulfil its mandate of reaching the world, then realising that it wouldn't happen unless some drastic changes were made. The transition he took the church through was difficult, he lost many valuable members, but was worth it in the end.

Not only did the process change the structure of the church, but it redefined their concept of ministry. Under the new structure, more of the responsibilities lay with the group of elders. Some were the same who originally served on the board, but they were had a calling in one of the five-fold ministries listed in Ephesians 4. Their role wasn't so much to minister, but to lead and enable the members to minister in the five areas. The pastor reduced his own role to that of a fellow elder, albeit a leader among equals. They were only ministers in so much as they ministered. It was no longer a job that came with a title. Moreover, anyone could be a minister. It wasn't so much a matter of being chosen for a position, but simply doing what they saw needed to be done. In doing that, they had the support and mentoring of whichever elder was called to that gifting.

The whole idea of a separation between clergy and laity was obsolete. Furthermore, as a minister in this sense, it's so much easier to be humble -- no title to maintain.

As I was translating for him from English into Thai, I was becoming more and more excited by what I was hearing. I had just recently started following the Emergent conversation, and pondering what exactly is church, and what would it look like if reduced to its bare essentials. Some of the aspects, such as the definition of ministry, had been in my head and heart for many years. But now, here was someone who was actually doing it. Now, I know it's possible.

What Makes Church? 4 - Leadership and Authority...continued

I believe that Matthew 18 is key to understanding what the church and leadership in it is all about. It is very significant that this discourse begins with the following:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me..."
First, we must understand that the concept of "church" didn't exist in the understanding of Yeshua's disciples. While the word appears in some English translations later in chapter 18, quoted in yesterday's blog entry, the word should be understood as "congregation", or "minyan", a concept understood in Judaism.

Judaism also understood the concept of "kingdom of God", or "kingdom of heaven" (which are synonymous terms), used in the above passage. They might not have understood exactly what Yeshua meant by it. What Yeshua meant, includes what the Pauline epistles later refer to as "church". I realise that this is something that could take up more space in explaining than I intend to do here. Instead, I'll refer you to Scot McKnight's recent blogs on the subject. I'll just say here that too often, we've separated the concepts of Kingdom and Church.

What Yeshua is referring to here isn't just the way things will be in the sweet bye 'n bye. To be sure, our life in heaven will reflect this, but what we need to grasp is that what Yeshua is saying is, leaders in the church are to be those who are the most humble, and accessible -- like children. Later in the chapter, we see, in the parable of the lost sheep, what Yeshua expects in leaders in the way of compassion, and priorities. All of this is something we, who think we're leadership material, ought to be considering very seriously.

Again, you'll find all of this discussed in more detail in chapter 12 of my online book, Culture Shock.

Monday, August 01, 2005

What Makes Church? 3 - Leadership and Authority

Continuing our discussion on Church, leading into our second subheading on leadership and authority, compare the following two passages, one from Matthew 18, and the other from the Talmud tractate, Berachot 6a:

Matthew 18:15-20:
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church (or "the congregation"), treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Talmud, Berachot 6a (remember the Jewish concept of a congregation being a minimum of 10 attendants):
Whence is it that when ten assemble for prayer the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "God standeth in the godly congregation" (Ps. lxxxii. 1). And whence is it that when three sit and judge, the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "In the midst of the judges He judgeth" (ibid). And whence is it that when two sit and occupy themselves with the study of the Torah, the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened and heard" (Mal iii. 16). And whence is it that even if an individual sits and occupies himself with the study of the Torah the Shechinah is with him? As it is said, "In every place where I cause My name to be remembered I will come unto thee and will bless thee" (Exod. xx. 24).
Notice the reference in both passages to the numbers two, three, and the congregation. As an aside, it's also interesting to note that Yeshua identifies Himself as the Shechinah -- which could be a clue to how the concept of the Trinity can be made to fit into Judaism.

When we look at it in the light of the two passages above, it seems clear that in Matthew 18, Yeshua was outlining the authority structure in the church along lines familiar to Jewish understanding.

For a more in depth study on this, read this ...

Friday, July 29, 2005

What Makes Church? 2 - Community and Relationship

The first component in church is community, and relationships within that community. This is the most fundamental aspect, and it is, I believe, the only one that actually defines church -- believers together in fellowship centred around Messiah. It's as simple as that. The other four headings -- authority structure, ministry and gifts, teaching, and worship -- don't define the church, but only help it become what it's supposed to be: transforming, missional, an army, a family, a "spiritual hospital" etc.


It's interesting that there is no reference in the New Testament of anyone outside of Yeshua, ever planting a church. Yeshua said in Matthew 16:13-20, "I will build my church." Other than that, there's no record of Paul, Peter or anyone else literally starting a church. What they did was call people to repentance and make disciples, and only then does the New Testament refer to the resulting group of believers as the church. (In the sense of one's ministry, I won't argue with anyone who calls themselves a "church planter". In fact, I use the term myself. In our 20th century terminology, it's become synonym for making and gathering disciples.)

Because I see community and relationship as being the only defining factor, I can look at any Christian institution, totally ignore the sign over the door, and recognise that the church exists there. Their structure doesn't define the church, but as long as there are true believers there who are in fellowship with one another, they constitute the church. It doesn't even matter if they understand that fact. Even if the official doctrines of that institution were destructive to spiritual life (if one were to follow them), as long as there is life in the hearts of the believers, and they acknowledge one another in love, it's church.

Inversely, even if they had perfectly sound teaching and had a format that encourage true fellowship, they are only the church in so far as there are believers there actually doing it.

Fellowship is what makes us the church. Whatever we can do to enhance fellowship with G-d and with one another on a spiritual level, so that we become a part of one another, will strengthen and vitalise the church. That's where the other subheadings come in.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

What Makes Church?

Before I go too far into this, let's get our priorities right, maybe with a very loose paraphrase of I Corinthians 13:

If a fellowship group happens to excel in all the points that I bring up in this and coming blog entries, if they are the model of the perfect church -- but don't have love: they are no more than a bunch of futile idealists.

On the other hand, if a church is so ingrained in all the traditional ways that the building and pulpit are looked on as icons of holiness; their cannon of scripture includes Scholfield's Notes; and when Messiah returns, they believe He will actually touch down at their denominational head office; and yet the first thing you notice about them is their sincere fervent love for the Lord and for one another and they would give their lives to extend that love to the world, I'd rather attend that church than the "perfect" one, as that's the one where you'll find Yeshua.

Becoming perfect is not the rout to perfection.

If you really want to know what I feel is most important in a church, here are my eight criteria. They have nothing to do with format, leadership model, authority structure, minor doctrines like eschatology etc, what day of the week they worship etc etc. I believe they are more important than any of the other points we've discussed so far in this blog, or that we will discuss. I'd really advise you to click on the link and read them before going on with this discussion. Yet, I don't know if there is a church that excels in all eight. If I did find such a church, I would stick with that one, no matter what good things could be said about Emergent and/or Messianic etc.

Having said that, I do believe that the quickest way to becoming such a church, one that fulfils the eight criteria, could be discussed under the following five headings:

1. community and relationship
2. authority structure
3. giftings and ministry
4. foundational teaching
5. worship

I hope to discuss these in the next few entries.

However, I suppose this should come with a warning label: I am not, at present, involved in the leadership of a church, let alone an Emergent or Messianic one. I believe that teaching like this should, ideally come up from one's experience. However, I have done church planting in the past. I believe I did a few things right, but I also made mistakes. I've also been involved in the development of various churches, though none of them are what I believe a church could be. I wrote a short autobiography called My Journey So Far for the express purpose of revealing where I'm coming from in what ever I teach or impart.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

My home church

The fellowship I attend, Emanuel Christian Fellowsihp in Lurgan, is neither Messianic (Jewish) nor Emergent. It does have its good points though. The pastor is a lorry driver. If he walked up in the foyer and shook your hand, you wouldn'd guess he was the pastor. He also believes in sharing his authority with a group of elders, and one of their priorities is equipping all the believers for ministry. They also have the beginnings of a cell group ministry. They recognise that many of their attenders need to come out of themselves and interact in one anther's lives.

To me, being Emergent and/or Messianic are means to an end. Since ECF seems to have got half way there without their help, I won't complain (anyway, who, among the best is any more than "half way there" anyway?)

The premesis that ECF occupies is an old supermarket shell, which extends into the area under the shops on High Street (actually called Market Street). A large part of that, they plan to use for a drop-in centre to minister to the needs of the diss-affected youth in the area. They are also located right on the dividing line between the two communities (the Roman Catholic and Protestant), which they feel is strategic.

The most current problem, however, is not between the two communities, but between two of the Protestant para-militaries, the UVF and the LVF, which looks like could erupt into a gang war affecting the peace of Lurgan. Last night, there was a special prayer meeting at ECF for this situation. One of those present felt lead to blow a shofar (ram's horn). Others had words, including one that it could be a time of shaking that will awaken many of the churches from their complacency.